Removing open access operators from the network by 2029

[357]

The actual seats are nicer but it's very high density and feels like a cattle wagon.

I find myself I have more space in Lumo airline seats than LNER!

I agree that if you want a table then Lumo probably isn't the best choice.

 

[43074]

We don’t know that as it is an alternative history. If the lumo paths hadn’t been approved it is quite conceivable that the ECML timetable recast would have been implemented before this year with additional servcies and seats provided between London and Edinburgh. Arguably more seats than are provided now.

That's totally disingenuous as an argument, how would 5 trains per day each way in the timetable materially affect the deliverability or otherwise of that timetable given the number of issues with it? Huntingdon to Woodwalton 4 tracking (among other infrastructure upgrades) not going ahead and issues with freight pathing have been far more significant barriers to it going ahead.

 

[Clarence Yard]

It’s fair to say that Lumo- which is almost entirely revenue abstractive, no matter how hard the ORR tried to argue otherwise- only got their OA licences in 2016 and 2024 because of similar political pressure from the other side of the spectrum.

If OA operators are charged the full, non-subsidised, cost of their paths then fine. But they are not and, more importantly, if they were then business cases for Lumo and Grand Central would go straight out of the window.

As for Grand Central’s revenue abstraction from York, there is a very good reason why GNER were so very angry when GC’s OA application was granted in 2006. As Christopher Garnett pointed out, GC were being charged less than GNER and were using that discount to undercut GNER. Not much has changed since 2006; Garnett was right then and the same argument applies now.

It isn’t fair to say Lumo is almost entirely revenue abstractive. That is just your assertion because you don’t like OA. It has no basis in fact - I have dealt with that on another thread - and political pressure was not applied to grant it rights (not a licence).

You are absolutely correct that if OA was charged the full cost of its paths, they would fold. But that’s not the current system - everyone pays only marginal costs plus markups where the market can afford. It was done that way to encourage model shift to rail.

Your mention of CG and his assertion that GC were being charged less than GNER is useful because the Judge in the subsequent High Court Case found otherwise. GC and GNER were being charged on exactly the same basis.

The Fixed Track Access Charge was found to be an “artificial construct”, designed to flow residual funding monies (after Grant and Charges) from the DfT to NR. It was a form of laundering Grant, not a proper cost charge and TOCs were protected from the annual variations in FTAC, which could be huge either way.

In that Court Case it was stated that LRIC charging was preferred by the ORR but NR was then in no position to allocate its costs correctly. That position has now changed and in PR18 NR did a lot of work in allocating LRIC to Operator and Service Group. If the “market can bear” test is removed from the Regs by the forthcoming legislation, then LRIC charging (probably on a per train mile basis) could well be introduced in 2029.

In the meantime Lumo will shortly be paying more per train mile in ICC than LNER will be “paying” in FTAC! That shows how bonkers the system has become and how it badly needs revising so everyone is charged (or in the case of GBR allocated costs) on the same transparent basis.

 

[Bald Rick]

That's totally disingenuous as an argument, how would 5 trains per day each way in the timetable materially affect the deliverability or otherwise of that timetable given the number of issues with it? Huntingdon to Woodwalton 4 tracking (among other infrastructure upgrades) not going ahead and issues with freight pathing have been far more significant barriers to it going ahead.

Really?

Youll have to wait for my memoirs.

 

[43074]

Really?

Youll have to wait for my memoirs.

Those might be a bit biased towards an NR point of view though Not completely sure NR themselves are totally relaxed with the timetable going ahead given the performance risks attached.

"Freight" was a bit of a loose description on my part, but certainly the FOCs remain unhappy with the outcome, and I'm not sure omitting 5 trains a day each way, mostly at off peak times and with sub-optimal paths themselves, would have made that much of a difference to the overall structure of the timetable and how freight fit around the long distance pattern. Especially given the number of freight paths which at various stages couldn't be accommodated.

 

[vuzzeho]

Most people do not use trains. Only a very small minority of people regularly use trains.

What? That's not true.

According to Inequality in Transport, in 2012 (so, outdated, but it's almost certainly risen by then), 58% of the population used the railway. Most of those users used it more than monthly. The ORR has data also suggesting rail travel is very popular here: https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/popular-statistics/how-many-people-use-the-railway/

On top of that, a 2018 DfT report found that in February 2018, 64% of UK adults had used a train at least once in the past 12 months.

I don't know where the idea that most people don't use trains came from.

 

[HSTEd]

What? That's not true.

According to Inequality in Transport, in 2012 (so, outdated, but it's almost certainly risen by then), 58% of the population used the railway. Most of those users used it more than monthly. The ORR has data also suggesting rail travel is very popular here: https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/popular-statistics/how-many-people-use-the-railway/

On top of that, a 2018 DfT report found that in February 2018, 64% of UK adults had used a train at least once in the past 12 months.

I don't know where the idea that most people don't use trains came from.

We have National Transportation Survey statistics for England from 2023.

The response for frequency of Surface Rail use for that year was as follows (from NTS0313):

• three or more times per week - 5%
• once or twice per week - 4%
• less than once a week, more than once or twice a month - 4%
• once or twice a month - 11%
• less than once or twice per month, more than once or twice per year - 16%
• once or twice per year - 18%
• less than once or twice per year - 42%

Whilst most people do occasionally use the surface railway, the fraction that use it regularly is rather small.

The fraction of people who use the surface railway three or more times per year is 40%
The fraction of people who use the surface railway at least once a month is 24%

EDIT:

Given that the mean number of journeys per person (in the UK) per year on the National Rail system is ~25, rail journeys are clearly very highly concentrated in a small portion of the population.

 

[The Planner]

What? That's not true.

According to Inequality in Transport, in 2012 (so, outdated, but it's almost certainly risen by then), 58% of the population used the railway. Most of those users used it more than monthly. The ORR has data also suggesting rail travel is very popular here: https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/popular-statistics/how-many-people-use-the-railway/

On top of that, a 2018 DfT report found that in February 2018, 64% of UK adults had used a train at least once in the past 12 months.

I don't know where the idea that most people don't use trains came from.

They said "regularly". If you wanted to generally mess about with statistics, the ORR page shows that 2019/20 Q3 461,207,500 journeys were made, so 12 weeks and 38,500,000 per week . If you assumed, rightly or wrongly, that people still working 5 days a week made 10 journeys a week, that is 3.85 million people. Google says GB population is 68 million, so 5.6% of people.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Given that most journeys by rail are within London and the South East I’m not sure that this is relevant to open access over longer distances on main lines. (Yes, I know about Heathrow Express.)

It’s probably fair to say that Open Access has stimulated trips, largely to/from London in Hull, Hartlepool, Halifax and even Morpeth, etc.. However these are likely to be on the occasional trip rather than regular commuting.

 

[ocean_life]

Genius, Not!

So anyone who wants a connecting ticket using both GBR and an OA operator would have to buy two tickets. How user friendly!

Talk about reverting to the (worst aspects) of the 19th century railway.

They wouldn't need to buy 2 tickets.

In Italy if you buy a ticket for a journey that involves an OA operator and Trenitalia then you will be given 2 tickets. One for the OA service (e.g Italo) and one for the Trenitalia service.

 

[357]

They wouldn't need to buy 2 tickets.

In Italy if you buy a ticket for a journey that involves an OA operator and Trenitalia then you will be given 2 tickets. One for the OA service (e.g Italo) and one for the Trenitalia service.

So you've bought two tickets then.

 

[A S Leib]

So you've bought two tickets then.

How are passenger rights in the case of disruption affected due to having two tickets rather than one?

 

[357]

How are passenger rights in the case of disruption affected due to having two tickets rather than one?

In the UK the train/s must stop at the station where the split is made, and it will class as a through journey.

I have no idea about Italy - what I do know however is that it is absolutely ridiculous to complicate journeys, complicate ticketing even further and potentially reduce passenger rights, just because some members of an internet forum don't like the colour of some trains on the network.

 

[ocean_life]

So you've bought two tickets then.

No, you have been given 2 tickets on the same transaction. Passengers don't care to the fact there are 2 tickets or different operators, only that they are valid for the journey that they need to make.

 

[Zomboid]

No, you have been given 2 tickets on the same transaction. Passengers don't care to the fact there are 2 tickets or different operators, only that they are valid for the journey that they need to make.

Similar to connecting flights in my experience, you get two or more boarding passes if your journey is in sections.

 

[357]

No, you have been given 2 tickets on the same transaction. Passengers don't care to the fact there are 2 tickets or different operators, only that they are valid for the journey that they need to make.

If they aren't treated as a through journey then they will.

 

[weeklycommuter]

The ORR board have met in June and the announcement on the WCML applications is expected shortly, may even be this week.

The ECML related applications were due to be discussed at the July ORR Board, unless they managed to sneak any into June.

Following the pattern of the June ORR Board meeting on 24 June and the subsequent announcement on 3 July of the rejection of the WCML applications I guess the July ORR Board meeting to decide the ECML related applications will be around 22 July and the announcement of the decisions around 31 July.

It will be interesting to see what the ORR decide on the ECML related applications. Whereas the WCML applications from WSMR, Lumo and Virgin were all for completely new services, the five ECML related open access applications from Grand Central, Hull Trains (two applications) and Lumo (two applications) are for fairly small increments to existing open access services.

 

[NCT]

It’s the age old argument, should the state subsidise the railways or should the users of the railways pay for them.

The general population doesn’t really benefit much from the railway. Most people do not use trains. Only a very small minority of people regularly use trains.

However my argument isn’t that the state shouldn’t subsidise the railways. My point is that I don’t think the state should be subsidising a highly profitable private company to compete directly on price against the state-subsidised operator. It’s just pseudo free-market nonsense that costs the taxpayer more money.

You've been repeatedly called out, so stop the hate.

Best-in-class countries like Switzerland and Netherlands have higher state spending in railway infrastructure than in the UK. State pay for infrastructure passengers pay for operation is the normal funding model across Europe so I don't see how this is controversial. When fare income almost covers the whole Network Grant the passenger is overpaying. The state should not be a profiting extraction entity, so the state should have proactively returned the vast franchise premia to the passengers through better service levels and closer to operationally break-even fares. Had the DfT been empowered to do this by the Treasury it would have done so without leaking money to private shareholders. That it took the private sector stepping in is just a reflection of government failure.

If the track access regime needs to be reset to be fairer then that just needs to be a technocratic exercise. Make it boring. The political grandstanding is making the government look amateur.

Just because some bloke said something 20 years ago doesn't make what he said right.

It isn’t fair to say Lumo is almost entirely revenue abstractive. That is just your assertion because you don’t like OA. It has no basis in fact - I have dealt with that on another thread - and political pressure was not applied to grant it rights (not a licence).

You are absolutely correct that if OA was charged the full cost of its paths, they would fold. But that’s not the current system - everyone pays only marginal costs plus markups where the market can afford. It was done that way to encourage model shift to rail.

Your mention of CG and his assertion that GC were being charged less than GNER is useful because the Judge in the subsequent High Court Case found otherwise. GC and GNER were being charged on exactly the same basis.

The Fixed Track Access Charge was found to be an “artificial construct”, designed to flow residual funding monies (after Grant and Charges) from the DfT to NR. It was a form of laundering Grant, not a proper cost charge and TOCs were protected from the annual variations in FTAC, which could be huge either way.

In that Court Case it was stated that LRIC charging was preferred by the ORR but NR was then in no position to allocate its costs correctly. That position has now changed and in PR18 NR did a lot of work in allocating LRIC to Operator and Service Group. If the “market can bear” test is removed from the Regs by the forthcoming legislation, then LRIC charging (probably on a per train mile basis) could well be introduced in 2029.

In the meantime Lumo will shortly be paying more per train mile in ICC than LNER will be “paying” in FTAC! That shows how bonkers the system has become and how it badly needs revising so everyone is charged (or in the case of GBR allocated costs) on the same transparent basis.

Mode shift from road to rail has been a long-standing government policy regardless of colour, so I don't think a charging regime reflecting that is exactly controversial.

I agree that FTAC is really a pass-through. It's a completely meaningless term in a premium franchise. The infrastructure costs a franchised TOC perceives in variating its service level is the VTAC, which as the Judge in the High Court Case said is exactly the same for GC and GNER (and its successors).

If say the state continued to pay for the long-run fixed cost of infrastructure through the Network Grant and LRIC went into VTAC, do we have a sense of by what percentage VTAC would have to rise from the current levels?

I've just skimmed the ORR page on the PR18 charging framework. Would Grand Central running additional services (for which it has applied for access) qualify as 'significant variations to their services' to then be subject to the ICC? York station was 10 million pre Covid and I suspect the 2024/25 figure will top 10m too.

 

[biggerisbetter]

It’s probably fair to say that Open Access has stimulated trips, largely to/from London in Hull, Hartlepool, Halifax and even Morpeth, etc.. However these are likely to be on the occasional trip rather than regular commuting.

I have often wondered whether whilst open access operations have undoubtedly stimulated trips to certain locations, if they now get in the way of improved services. For example, could Hull justify a more regular (hourly?) service by retaining the existing paths, also stopping these services at Peterborough and Newark and diverting the York semi-fast service to Hull also? Similarly, without the Braford Interchange service (I appreciate it also serves Pontefract, Mirfield, Brighouse and Halifax) could Bradford justify an hourly extension from Leeds to Forster Square?

 

[weeklycommuter]

In its Annual assessment of Network Rail covering the period from 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025 the Office of Rail and Road is very critical of the length of time taken by Network Rail to respond to the numerous applications from freight and passenger train operators for paths for the 2025 timetable changes and states that Network Rail will not complete the process fully until the end of July 2025.

Following the announcement on 3 July rejecting the three open access passenger applications for paths on the West Coast Mainline I assume the Office of Rail and Road will shortly announce decisions on applications for paths on the East Coast Mainline.

Annual assessment of Network Rail 2024 to 2025 | Office of Rail and Road

Covering the period from 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025.

www.orr.gov.uk

Annual assessment of Network Rail 2024 to 2025

Published: 17 July 2025

Covering the period from 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025

Key message 4
Network Rail saw an unprecedented volume of access applications this year from operators. However, its decision making was not timely and it needs to speed up its decisions on access to the network.

We wrote to Network Rail’s System Operator on several occasions during the year seeking improvements to its plans for allocating capacity on the railway. We have required it to improve the pace at which it makes decisions on applications for long-term access to the East and West Coast Main Lines to remove barriers to passenger and freight operators to delivering efficiency and growth. We are beginning to see the benefits of this intervention as Network Rail has improved its responses to access applications in recent months.

We highlighted issues with Network Rail’s processes for agreeing train operator access in 2023. Network Rail’s System Operator responded with improvements to its procedures to manage access applications more effectively. This had led to improvements in the timeliness of Network Rail’s access decisions. However, despite significant effort from teams in the System Operator and the Regions during 2024 and 2025, these improvements were not sustained following the exceptionally large number of complex, interacting applications received during the year. It is only selling contingent (short-term) access rights on large parts of the network whereas operators require firm rights to plan and invest in rolling stock and train crew for timetables, with particular impact on open access and freight operators.

Because Network Rail was unable to agree long-term access rights for many operators, the December 2024 and May 2025 timetable changes required it to operate short-term 'contingent' access rights processes to ensure train services could be operated lawfully. These did not run smoothly for some regions, with applications arriving very late to ORR and of insufficient accuracy to reflect the timetable. We have written to the System Operator on four occasions over the year, highlighting concerns and asking how it will expedite improvements.

In February 2025, Network Rail confirmed its plans did not include it reaching agreement with any operators on access to its network. Instead, it decided to provide information to ORR for ORR to direct access in every case. Network Rail undertook to expedite a large number of its representations during April, and this was partly delivered. Network Rail will not complete this process fully until the end of July 2025. While Network Rail has improved its responsiveness recently, it must now sustain this to enable ORR to take decisions in a timely manner for timetables to be legally supported in 2025. If it does not, investment by funders and operators may be put at risk of legal dispute where proposed service changes are not supported by firm access rights.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jul 2025 ==

The Office of Rail and Road has today 29 July 2025 issued the following press release approving the following applications for extensions of open access passenger train services on the East Coast Mainline. This approval of some of the open access applications on the East Coast Mainline is in contrast to the rejection of all three applications for open access passenger train services on the West Coast Mainline.

The only application rejected is the Hull Trains application for new services between London King’s Cross and Sheffield.

ORR approves limited new passenger services on East Coast Main Line from December 2025 | Office of Rail and Road

The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) has approved some additional services from December 2025 for three open access operators, extending or adding to their existing services on the East Coast Main Line (ECML).

www.orr.gov.uk

ORR approves limited new passenger services on East Coast Main Line from December 2025​

29 July 2025
The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) has approved some additional services from December 2025 for three open access operators, extending or adding to their existing services on the East Coast Main Line (ECML).

ORR said the additional services from East Coast Trains Limited (Lumo), Grand Central Rail Company Limited (Grand Central) and Hull Trains Company Limited (Hull Trains) will offer passengers extra direct rail links between London King’s Cross and Glasgow, Hull and Newcastle and also introduce links to other destinations, including Seaham, on the North East coast. ORR’s decisions also mean more services between Wakefield and Bradford.
The additional approved services are:

• Grand Central: two additional Wakefield Kirkgate to Bradford Interchange services on weekdays and Saturdays; one additional Bradford Interchange to Wakefield Kirkgate service on weekdays and Saturdays; and one additional Bradford Interchange to Wakefield Kirkgate service in each direction on Sundays, and some additional Seaham calls on existing services
• Hull Trains: one additional northbound service weekdays and Saturdays between London King’s Cross and Hull
• Lumo (Newcastle): one additional return service between London King’s Cross and Newcastle on weekdays and one additional service in opposing directions on a Saturday and Sunday
• Lumo (Glasgow extensions): the extension of existing London King’s Cross-Edinburgh services so that Lumo can provide two northbound services and one southbound service between London King’s Cross and Glasgow on weekdays and one in each direction on Sundays

ORR said it rejected other proposed services from the above applicants, on the basis of insufficient capacity and potential performance impacts, or impact on the Secretary of State’s funds. The rail regulator also rejected an application from Hull Trains for new services between London King’s Cross and Sheffield.
In making its decisions, ORR said it put weight on its duties to promote the use of Britain’s rail network, help give certainty to train operators, promote competition for the benefit of passengers and have regard to the funds available to the Secretary of State.
Stephanie Tobyn, ORR’s director of strategy, policy and reform, said:
"Approving these additional open access services will increase connectivity on the East Coast Main Line. Importantly, we have ensured the approval of these services can be accommodated alongside the major service uplifts by other operators, which have been planned into the December 2025 timetable, so together passengers and freight customers can benefit from more direct connections and greater choice from December."

Notes to editors​

1. Decision on applications for access to the East Coast Main Line (ECML) – letter to applicants
2. Applicants’ complete list of proposed services:
   • Grand Central additional rights (December 2025 to December 2027)
     Monday – Saturday; two additional return services between Bradford Interchange and London King’s Cross; one additional return service between York and London King’s Cross; one additional service between London King’s Cross and Wakefield Kirkgate; two new services in each direction between Wakefield Kirkgate and Bradford Interchange; and additional calls at Peterborough and Seaham Stations in some services. Sunday: one additional return between Bradford Interchange and London King’s Cross; one new return service between York and London King’s Cross; and Peterborough and Seaham station calls to be added in some services.
   • Hull Trains (May 2026 to December 2032)
     Two daily return services from London King’s Cross to Sheffield via Retford with intermediate stops at Worksop and Woodhouse and one daily return service between Meadowhall and Sheffield.
   • Hull Trains (December 2025 to December 2032)
     One return service between London King’s Cross and Hull on weekdays and Saturdays.
   • Lumo, Newcastle (December 2025 to May 2033)
     One return service between London King’s Cross and Newcastle on weekdays and one train in opposing directions on Saturday and Sunday, and to extend existing services to call at Stevenage.
   • Lumo, Edinburgh-Glasgow extensions
     Four return services between Edinburgh and Glasgow Queen Street on weekdays, five services on Saturdays and three services on Sundays with an additional Glasgow Queen Street to Edinburgh service daily.
3. The rights we have approved to operate Grand Central's services are on a contingent basis due to the potential for the operator needing to adjust its depot strategy, and consequently Empty Coaching Stock moves, from 2028. The additional Seaham calls may conflict with future firm rights already granted to Nexus (the Tyne & Wear metro operator) for an additional train per hour to/from Sunderland. On this basis Network Rail requested the rights are approved on a time-limited and contingent basis, with no presumption of continuity of rights beyond December 2026.
4. ORR’s open access guidance
5. ORR is the independent safety and economic regulator for Britain’s railways. ORR ensures that passenger train companies and freight companies have fair access to the rail network and that best use is made of capacity.

This is the decision letter for these open access applications.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-07/2025-07-29-ecml-decision-letter.pdf

Open access applications for access to the East Coast Main Line (ECML)
1. We have carefully considered five applications to extend or add to existing open access services on the ECML through supplemental agreements to the track access contracts with Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Network Rail). The applications were made by East Coast Trains Limited (Lumo), Grand Central Railway Company Limited (Grand Central) and Hull Trains Company Limited (Hull Trains) and were submitted to us under section 22A of the Railways Act 1993 (the Act) between January and May 2024.
2. ORR’s decisions to approve some of these applications will offer passenger opportunities for extra direct rail links between London King’s Cross and Glasgow, Hull and Newcastle and introduce services to other ECML linked destinations, including Seaham. Our decisions also provide additional opportunities for services between Wakefield and Bradford. These decisions help provide clarity, transparency and certainty for open access, freight and public service operators on the ECML in advance of implementing the December 2025 timetable.
3. We have approved an application from Lumo for one additional return service between London King’s Cross and Newcastle on weekdays and one additional service in opposing directions on a Saturday and Sunday, and the extension of existing calls at Stevenage.
4. We have approved the following elements from three of the applications:
• Grand Central – two additional Wakefield Kirkgate – Bradford Interchange services on weekdays and Saturdays; one additional Bradford Interchange – Wakefield Kirkgate service on weekdays and Saturdays; and one additional Bradford Interchange – Wakefield Kirkgate service in each direction on Sundays, and some time-limited additional Seaham calls on existing services, all on a contingent basis;
• Hull Trains – one additional northbound service on weekdays and Saturdays between London King’s Cross and Hull; and
• Lumo Glasgow extensions – the extension of two existing northbound and one existing southbound service between Edinburgh and Glasgow on weekdays and one extension in each direction on Sundays.
5. We have rejected the Hull Trains application for new services between London King’s Cross and Sheffield in its entirety.

 

[Bald Rick]

This approval of some of the open access applications on the East Coast Mainline is in contrast to the rejection of all three applications for open access passenger train services on the West Coast Mainline.

It’s not quite that simple, as the letter shows.

For example, GC applied for four additional return trips to/from London Mon-Sat (2 x Bradford, 1 x Wakefield, 1 x York), an dmore on Sundays, plus two return services between Bradford and Wakefield (which already run ECS), plus additional calls at Peterborough and Seaham.

Of this, all that was approved is most of the Bradford to Wakefield trips, and some additional Seaham calls. The rest was rejected.

Lumo’s additional Newcastle service only just squeaked under the abstraction test, and is “very sensitive to Lumo’s fare pricing”. Most of their Glasgow extensions were rejected as they failed the abstraction test, only about a third have been agreed which did pass the test.

 

[A S Leib]

Most of their Glasgow extensions were rejected as they failed the abstraction test

Did they try to apply to run Glasgow services with Edinburgh being pick-up / set-down only?

 

[Bald Rick]

Did they try to apply to run Glasgow services with Edinburgh being pick-up / set-down only?

No, just regular extensions of 4 services each way on weekdays, 5 on Saturdays and 3 on Sundays, and a stand alone Glasgow to Edinburgh every day (presumably at the end of the day). That’s 63 per week in total. Of these, two ‘northbound’ and one ’southbound’ have been approved Mon - Sat, and one each way on Sundays. That’s 20.

I guess northbound is towards Glasgow, even though Queen St is further south than Waverley!

 

[notadriver]

A great win for open access !!!

 

[AlterEgo]

Similar to connecting flights in my experience, you get two or more boarding passes if your journey is in sections.

Not always. I’m travelling on one paper boarding pass today, which includes a connecting flight.

 

[Mike Machin]

It's all going the wrong way, the aim should be to have ALL long-distance services operating by open-access operators by 2029.

 

[NCT]

It's all going the wrong way, the aim should be to have ALL long-distance services operating by open-access operators by 2029.

Says who? And why?

 

[43096]

Says who? And why?

If you take the current trend in long-distance rail travel ticketing, which is to advance purchase and booked train only, then that very naturally leads to an airline style model of operators bidding for individual slots. It's "pure" privatisation and probably what many of the ideological Tories wanted back in 1991 - but it obviously not the way the industry setup is now going.

 

[Harpo]

It's all going the wrong way, the aim should be to have ALL long-distance services operating by open-access operators by 2029.

I’m sure there’ll be an extreme right wing think tank somewhere that’ll agree. Just don’t expect regular frequencies or a connectional network.

 

[Bertie the bus]

It's all going the wrong way, the aim should be to have ALL long-distance services operating by open-access operators by 2029.

I'm sure that would work well. Or it might until something happened, like a recession or Covid or a terrorist attack or an incident similar to Hatfield, and they all went bust leaving no rail service at all or the state to pick up the pieces and bill.